Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP19 Showalter Annotated Staff Report SDP 2025-00006CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page I of 15 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Application ) PROPOSED FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS, AND ) RECOMMEND ATIONS File Number: SDP2024-00006 Applicant: Robert Carson (Rock Island Shellfish), P.O. Box 181, Port Gamble, WA 98364 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION Application: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea) within private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system. SEAPA baskets, a near-bottom culture system, will be installed, maintained, and operated within the intertidal zone between +4 feet to -4.2 feet mean lower low water. Each basket will be stocked with oyster seed. Oysters will be raised to full growth prior to being harvested and sold commercially. SEAPA baskets will be placed in approximately two acres (of the six- acre project area). Native eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs within the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from any place where the native eelgrass is present. Gear abandoned in the intertidal area by a previous aquaculture operation will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant submitted a Habitat Report and a Habitat Management Plan. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist. The proposal is immediately adjacent to three parcels owned by the applicant. No upland activity related to this aquaculture application is proposed on the three subject parcels or within shoreline jurisdiction elsewhere in the county. No new buildings, ground clearing, or staging areas to support aquaculture operations are proposed. Regulatory Authority: ICC 18.25.020 states that uses and developments, as defined in Article II of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), shall comply with the program if the proposed activity is within shoreline jurisdiction. Aquaculture is included in Article II (JCC 18.25.100(1)(bb)) and is, therefore, subject to SMP policies, prohibitions, and regulations. Per Table ICC 18.25.220 and JCC 18.25.440(3)(b) and (c), this application is to be reviewed as a Type III Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Recommendation: Approval with conditions BACKGROUND INFORMATION Location: The proposal would be located in Hood Canal (just west of the Hood Canal Bridge). The site plan showing the proposed farm location is shown in Exhibit 20, page 5. Commented [MS1]: Phrasing suggests that tidelands aren’t part of the parcels, which they are. Suggests that Carson only owns the uplands Commented [MS2]: “Is proposed” evades describing all of the development already conducted by Carson Commented [MS3R2]: “No new” buildings, etc. evades describing the buildings, ground clearing, and staging already done by Carson CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 2 of 15 Project Area Conditions: The tidelands had previously been used for decades to raise oysters (by Sea Garden) and that operation ceased in 2017. The county determined the Sea Garden farm had been abandoned (JCC 18.25.l00(l)(a)) and the proposed Rock Island Shellfish farm would need to obtain a shoreline permit prior to operating a shellfish farm at this location. Some derelict gear from the previous aquaculture operation is still present within the intertidal zone and the old, rusting equipment will be removed as part of the current proposal. Both native and non-native eelgrass are present in the intertidal zone and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from those areas in which the native plant occurs. Steep, forested bluffs are present near the northern end of the project area and the Hood Canal Bridge is about 0.25 mile to the east. Unpermitted development occurs in the adjacent shorelands. The development on the three parcels owned by the applicant is within the shoreline buffer. To address the violation, the applicant has signed a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the county, which allows the applicant time to either obtain 'after-the-fact' permits or remove the development from the properties. Compliance with the VCA is addressed as a permit condition in this staff report. Shoreline Designation: Pursuant to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, the shoreline environment designation below OHWM is Aquatic, and the adjacent shoreland is designated as Natural. Comprehensive Plan: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted December 10, 2018) states that the goals, policies, and regulations of the SMP are considered part of the Comprehensive Plan. Pre-application Meeting: A pre-application meeting was held on March 26, 2024 (Exhibit 1). Date of Application: The shoreline application was submitted on June 3, 2024 (Exhibit 2). The application was deemed complete on June 27, 2024. Site Visits: DCD staff made site visits to the project area on August 7, 2024 and December 4, 2024 (Exhibits 7 and 15, respectively), and then met onsite with the project attorney/representative, Jesse DeNike, on January 27, 2025 (Exhibits 22 and 24). A site visit was made to post the notice the public hearing on July 29, 2025 (Exhibit 47). State Environmental Policy Act Review: The proposal is subject to review under SEPA. A Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued by Jefferson County on May 20, 2025 (Exhibit 34). On June 3, 2025, Marilyn Showalter and Jan Wold filed an appeal of the threshold determination with Office of the Hearing Examiner (Exhibits 40 and CA-01). The SEPA appeal has been consolidated with the public hearing for the Type III shoreline application. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the Type III permitting process, the application was noticed as was the public hearing. Notice of Application: The application and SEPA documents were noticed on July 10, 2024 (Exhibits 3, 4, and 5): • Published in The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on July 10, 2024; • Posted on the property on July 9, 2024; • Sent to agencies and tribes on July 10, 2024; and • Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on July 9, 2024. Commented [MS4]: The County notably has determined that Carson has violated the SMA. Strict enforcement should follow. 18.25.250(1)(9) Commented [MS5]: I cannot find this “voluntary” agreement. Regardless, no SMA permit should issue until the violations have been remedied. . Commented [MS6]: No, the VCA is NOT addressed. It is simply tacked Condition 37, no more information. No dates, no deadlines, no description. Commented [MS7]: In addition, compare Dec 12, 2024 photos in 040 SEPA Appeal, pp 12-20, eg. propane tanks, to “cleaned up” scene in Aug 7, 2024 photos. Commented [MS8]: Was posted at dead end of closed road and contained many other errors, see Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss and Reply. CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 3 of 15 N Comments Received: Comments received by Department of Community Development (DCD) are listed below. • Jefferson County Public Works (Terry Duff) submitted a comment by email on July 10, 2024 (Exhibit 6). She noted there is a hold that is relevant to the three upland parcels associated with this application. Staff Comment: The following presents the staff response to the comment received during noticing: • The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners responded to an emergency by closing Killapie Beach Road by resolution (22-99) on March 15, 1999. In response to the comment, DCD had subsequent communications with Jefferson County Public Works (Exhibit 21). Permit conditions pertaining to Killapie Beach Road have been added. On August 29, 2024, DCD received an email from Marilyn Showalter, who stated that the notice was defective for two reasons: (1) an incorrect date is listed in the notice and (2) in an email sent to DCD on November 30, 2023, she asked to be a party ofrecord for aquaculture applications associated with the three Carson properties (Exhibit 10). Staff Comment: The incorrect due date was sent to six property owners within 300 feet of the project area. However, agencies, tribes, newspapers, and Ecology's SEPA Register all had the correct date for submitting comments as did the notice posted on the property. The county believes the notice of application with SEPA review was consistent with county noticing requirements and that the error did not prevent anyone from submitting comments. As for the request to be notified about any permit processes associated with this application, this request came in to DCD slightly more than six months before the shoreline application was submitted. There is no requirement in the Jefferson County Code for the department to accept and track pre-emptive requests to be a party of record. On July 24, 2025, DCD began receiving emails from the public. Those submitting comments said that they did not see a notice posted along Shine Road (which is the road used to access Killapie Beach Road), with some stating the application should be re-noticed (Exhibit 49). As of July 30, 2025, DCD has received emails from the following people: • John Fabian • John Simpson • William and Cheryl West • Marcia Schwendiman • Charles and Patricia Marquis • Steve Ditmar • Elena Brenna • Carolyn Eagan • Sara Davis • Nellie Andersen and Nezam Tooloee • Sue Corbett • Karen Lopilato • Steve Aos • Randy Corbett Staff Comment: While those listed above said the way the proposal was noticed left them unaware that a shellfish farm was proposed, none of the commentors indicated that the proposal would have the potential to affect their use of the tidelands or that the proposal might result in adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. Everyone who sent in comments was added as a party of record and was sent a notice of public hearing. Notice of Public Hearing: The public hearing was noticed on July 30, 2025 (Exhibits 47 and 50) • Published in The Port Townsend/Jefferson County Leader on July 30, 2025; Commented [MS9]: Not surprisingly, the only comment received was by a county worker who had been personally notified. Commented [MS10]: Not stated here, I sent another email, Nov 13, 2024, pointing out more errors. Ex AP 13 “Compendium” p. 65, and more in my Appeal Commented [MS11]: Unstated: incorrect case # was ALSO on the posted NOA, Exh 10 p.4. Incorrect case # and comment date are STILL in filed NOA, Ex 04, p11 Commented [MS12]: The NOA posting flatly violated the requirement to post near vehicular and pedestrian traffic: JCC JCC 18.40.210(2). Exh ab13 p,142. Commented [MS13]: Staff Comment is non-responsive. That people weren’t “prevented” from commenting is not evidence of a properly posted NOA. Commented [MS14]: Frostholm-Carson communications began at least by Sep 26, 2023, BEFORE I requested to be informed. EXH ab13, p. 63, thru June application Commented [MS15]: The more relevant question is whether Ms. Frostholm knew and remembered I was an interested party when the NOA was issued. Commented [MS16]: To be clear: They didn’t see a notice because there WAS no notice posted on Shine Road. Commented [MS17]: Staff Cmnt is non-responsive. These citizens didn’t see the notice and didn’t know of the proposal, so they couldn’t know its effects. CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 4 of 15 • Posted on the property on July 29, 2025; • Sent to agencies and tribes on July 30, 2025; • Sent to parties of record on July 30, 2025; and • Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on July 29, 2025. JEFFERSON COUNTY APPROVALS REQUIRED/APPLICABLE ORDINANCES The proposal was reviewed against all relevant requirements, specifically: • Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 10, 2018; and • Jefferson County Code, Title 18 - Unified Development Code, adopted December 18, 2000 and effective January 16, 2001, as amended, including Chapter 18.25 JCC (SMP). This staff report is intended to show compliance with all applicable regulations. In addition to the responses in this staff report, the project proponent prepared a code consistency analysis (Exhibit 2). STAFF FINDINGS The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code, including the Shoreline Master Program. l. Proposal. The applicant is proposing to install rebar racks to support growing shellfish in SEAPA baskets in the intertidal waters of Hood Canal. The applicant also proposes to remove any remaining derelict gear left onsite from a previous aquaculture operation. Use of the upland portion of the property for the aquaculture farm is not proposed. No other sites have been identified by the applicant for use in support of this application. 2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed shoreline development is subject to the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The shoreline goal (EN-G-4) states: Implement Chapter 18.25 JCC to protect shoreline functions and processes while allowing appropriate development and uses within the shorelines of Jefferson County. Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program) and is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan goal and the policies of ensuring the proposal complies with SMP goals and policies (Policy EN-P-4.1) and working cooperatively with Ecology (Policy EN-P-4.2). 3. Jefferson County Code - Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22 JCC). The proposed development is within shoreline jurisdiction and is subject to the critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC. The application was reviewed for the potential presence of critical areas under the provisions of the Unified Development Code. After an initial Geographic Information System mapping review, the following critical areas were determined have the potential to be present in the project area: fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (marine water serves as a primary association for listed fish species, commercial and recreational shellfish areas, eelgrass patches, kelp beds) and frequently flooded areas. Staff Comment: Hood Canal is regulated as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA). The applicant submitted a Habitat Report prepared by Marine Surveys & Assessments (undated), a Habitat Management Plan prepared by Confluence Environmental Company (dated May 2024), and a Programmatic Biological Opinion for Shellfish Activities. These documents identify FWHCAs that have the potential to occur in the project area and present impact minimization and conservation measures to protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. These measures have been added as recommended permit conditions at the end of this staff report. R The proposal will be located in an area mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel 53031C0935C) as Zone VE. The proposed project requires a flood Commented [MS18]: Not mentioned: the Hearing Notice was also posted on Shine Road—an admission that the earlier NOA posting location was deficient. Commented [MS19]: The Hearing Notice had a cryptic pathway to information; inquiries to the email provided received an out of office reply with no contact Commented [MS20]: This phrasing avoids confronting the violations already committed by Carson. Commented [MS21]: False. Carson DID mention parking and boat ramp offsite but FAILED, as REQUIRED to add JARPA Att B, EXH 02, p. 173 & post NOA Commented [MS22]: The proposal does NOT comply with ENP4.1, which incorporates Articles III, VI, VII, and VII of JCC 18.25, e.g., 18.25.178 Restoration CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 5 of 15 development permit, which is incorporated into the shoreline permit. The proposal meets the definition of development, but not structure, in JCC 15.15.050. Development in the floodplain must comply with the Biological Opinion (BiOp) and one way to meet the BiOp requirements is through the federal permitting process. Since this proposal requires a permit from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the applicant was not required to submit a Habitat Assessment to DCD. To ensure compliance with the BiOp, a condition of approval includes the requirement to obtain the Corps permit prior to beginning any work on this project and to adhere to federal permit conditions. Wetlands are mapped along the shoreline, but no wetlands are present in the high-energy marine environment where this project is proposed. The adjacent bluff is a geologically hazardous area but the shorelands are not included in the proposal. For this reason, no geotechnical report was required. The proposal was noticed to federal, state, and local agencies and to tribes (Exhibit 4). DCD did not receive comments from agencies or tribes that would indicate fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas would be adversely affected by the proposal. 4. Jefferson County Code -Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC). The proposal is subject to all applicable policies and regulations of the Jefferson County SMP. Staff Comment: The proposal is subject to following sections of the SMP: JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture JCC 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria JCC 18.25.230 through 18.25.250 (Article V) Shorelines of statewide significance JCC 18.25.270 through 18.25.320 (Article VI) General policies and regulations Each of these sections of the SMP are addressed below. JCC 18.25.440(1) presents polices pertaining to aquaculture. The following policies are applicable to this proposal: (a) Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of Jefferson County. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy. (b) The county should support aquaculture uses and developments that: (i) Protect and improve water quality; and (ii) Minimize damage to important nearshore habitats; and (iii) Minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters; and (iv) Minimize the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, such as those resultingfrom in-water structures/apparatus/equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate disturbance/modification (including rate, frequency, and spatial extent). Staff Comment: The proposal would be expected to protect water quality in the bay during the operational phase (any turbidity that may occur during installation and harvesting is expected to be localized and of short duration). The proposed project is not expected to impact forage fish and the rebar racks and SEAPA baskets will be located at least 16.5 feet from patches of native eelgrass so the potential damage to the nearshore environment has been minimized. Boats would likely use the deeper water of Hood Canal so placing new aquaculture in the intertidal zone is not expected to affect navigation. Public use of the intertidal surface waters could continue as it has in the past if this proposal were to be approved and implemented. Cumulative impacts have been addressed by the applicant and are expected to be minimal. No upland facilities are proposed and the gear proposed for use for this farm is to be placed to avoid impacts to eelgrass and the reduced eelgrass buffer. This policy has been met. Commented [MS23]: This phrasing shows how the County is turning a blind eye to Carson’s illegal development inside the buffer, by scoping down the “site.” Commented [MS24]: The County avoids this requirement by limiting the side to the tidelands. But Carson has already done damage to the nearshore. Commented [MS25]: Facilities aren’t proposed, but they’ve already been constructed. They should be removed BEFORE any permit issues. CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 6 of 15 (d) Aquaculture use and development should locate in areas where biophysical conditions, such as tidal currents, water temperature and depth, will minimize adverse environmental impacts. Individual aquaculture uses and developments should be separated by a sufficient distance to ensure that significant adverse cumulative effects do not occur. Staff Comment: Based on information submitted by the applicant, conditions at the proposed location are appropriate and no significant adverse cumulative effects would be expected. An aquaculture operation previously existed at this location for decades so the biophysical conditions appear to be suitable for this type of use. OJ Commercial and recreational shellfish areas including shellfish habitat conservation areas are critical habitats. Shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and bed/ands are allowed uses. Such activities include but are not limited to bed marking, preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy. JCC 18.25.440(2) presents uses and activities prohibited outright. This section of the SMP pertains to in-water finfish aquaculture. Staff Comment: In-water finfish aquaculture is not proposed. JCC 18.25.440(3) identifies shoreline environment designation regulations for aquaculture: (b) Aquatic. Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of the adjacent upland shoreline environment. (c) Natural. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). Allfinfish aquaculture is prohibited, except in-water finfish aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)) where the area within the county's jurisdiction extends seaward more than eight miles from the OHWM, as measured perpendicularly from shore. This does not require facilities to locate eight miles offshore; see other provisions of this section for siting requirements and supplemental maps for additional information. Staff Comment: The proposal is allowed in the Natural designation and the proposal has been reviewed against all applicable policies and regulation in the SMP. JCC 18.25.440(4) presents the shoreline regulations for aquaculture: (a) When a shoreline permit is issued for a new aquaculture use or development, that permit shall apply to the initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility or farm. If the initial approval is a shoreline substantial development permit, it shall be valid for a period of five years with a possible one-year extension. If the initial approval is a conditional use permit, it shall be valid for the period specified in the permit. Staff Comment: The shoreline permit is valid for five years. (b) Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development, and shall not require a new permit, unless or until: (i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or more than 25 percent ofthefacility(farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to the conditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. If the amount of expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any I 0-year period, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements of this section; or. (ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington. Staff Comment: Not applicable this is a new aquaculture application. Commented [MS26]: Carson failed to analyze nearby existing or pro-posed shellfish farms, , including his own future plans. EXH 02, p2, fn 1, & p72 Commented [MS27]: The extremely high winds (60 mph) and fetch of this area has resulted in dozens of loose oyster bags on Squamish Harbor beaches. Commented [MS28]: This comment is correct, which is why the comparable language in Condition 34 must be stricken . CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 7 of 15 (c) Aquaculture uses and activities involving hatching, seeding, planting, cultivating, raising and/or harvesting of planted or naturally occurring shellfish shall not be considered development, as defined in Article II of this chapter, and shall not require a shoreline substantial development permit, unless: (i) The activity substantially interferes with normal public use of surface waters; or (ii) The activity involves placement of any structures as defined in Article II of this chapter; or (iii) The activity involves dredging using mechanical equipment such as clamshell, dipper, or scraper; or (iv) The activity involves filling of tidelands or bedlands. Staff Comment: Structures would be placed in intertidal areas; therefore, this proposal requires a shoreline substantial development permit. (d) The county shall assess the potential for interference described in subsection (3)(c) of this section on a case-by-case basis. All proposed new aquaculture uses or developments shall submit a joint aquatic permit application (JARPA) and SEPA checklist to enable assessment by the county. Activities shall not be considered to substantially interfere with normal public use of surface waters, unless: (i) They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of public tidelands; and (ii} They involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar apparatus on a regular basis and in a manner that substantially obstructs public access, or passage from public facilities such as parks or boat ramps; or they exclude the public from more than one acre of surface water on an ongoing or permanent basis. Staff Comment: A JARPA and SEPA Environmental Checklist were submitted. The proposal is not adjacent to public tidelands nor would it be expected to substantially interfere with normal use of surface waters. (e) Aquaculture activities not listed in subsection (4)(c) of this section and listed activities that fail to meet any of the criteria in subsection (l)(b) of this section shall require a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP) or conditional use permit (CUP), and shall be subject to all of the following regulations: (i) Subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures and apparatus associated with aquaculture use shall be located, designed, and maintained to avoid adverse effects on ecological functions and processes. (ii) The county shall consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities/farms to prevent adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and adjoining land uses. The county shall determine what constitutes acceptable placement and concentration of commercial aquaculture in consultation with state and federal agencies and tribes based on the specific characteristics of the waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the vicinity of the farm/facility. (iii) Upland structures accessory to aquaculture use that do not require a waterside location or have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers required by this program. (iv) Overwater work shelters and sleeping quarters accessory to aquaculture use/development shall be prohibited. (v) Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed IO feet in height above the water's surface. The administrator may approve hoists and similar structures greater than IO feet in height when there is a clear demonstration of need. The I 0-foot height limit shall not apply to vessels. (vi) Floating/hanging aquaculture facilities and associated equipment, except navigation aids, shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment in order to minimize visual impacts. (vii) Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation or access to adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas. Mitigation shall be provided to offset such impacts where there is a high probability that adverse impacts would Commented [MS29]: Proposed offsite parking and boat launching ARE adjacent to public tidelands but were not analyzed, and no NOA was posted there. Commented [MS30]: The drift cell and high winds and fetch clearly bring loose oyster bags, tubes, and baskets to Squamish Harbor beaches. CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 8 of 15 occur. This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that an operator is required to provide access across owned or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners. (viii) Aquaculture uses and developments, except in-water finfish aquaculture, shall be located at least 600 feet from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion haulouts, seabird nesting colonies, or other areas identified as critical feeding or migration areas for birds and mammals. In-water finfish facilities, including net pens, shall be located 1,500 feet or more from such areas. The county may approve lesser distances based upon written documentation that US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and affected tribes support the proposed location. (ix) Aquaculture uses and development shall be sited so that shading and other adverse impacts to existing red/brown macro algae (kelp), and eelgrass beds are avoided. (x) Aquaculture uses and developments that require attaching structures to the bed or bottom/ands shall use anchors, such as helical anchors, that minimize disturbance to substrate. (xi) Where aquaculture use and development are authorized to use public facilities, such as boat launches or docks, the county shall reserve the right to require the applicant/proponent to pay a portion of the maintenance costs and any required improvements commensurate with the applicant's/proponent's use. (xii) Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to control birds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations. (xiii) Aquaculture use and development shall avoid use of chemicals, fertilizers and genetically modified organisms except when allowed by state and federal law. (xiv) Non-navigational directional lighting associated with aquaculture use and development shall be used whenever possible and area lighting shall be avoided and minimized to the extent necessary to conduct safe operations. Non-navigational lighting shall not adversely affect vessel traffic. (xv) Aquaculture waste materials and by-products shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). Staff Comment: The following addresses subsections (i) through (xv): (i) Based on information submitted, the proposed location would be suitable for the proposed use. Some of the measures being implemented to minimize impacts to the shoreline environment include installing equipment that will not rest on the substrate and placing equipment in intertidal areas that avoid impacts to native eelgrass and forage fish. This proposal is subject to review under SEPA and DCD did not receive any comments from federal or state agencies or from tribal representatives that would indicate the proposal may have adverse effects on the shoreline environment if placed at this location. (ii) Cumulative impacts were assessed as part of the review, including the location of the proposal relative to another permitted aquaculture projects. There is no indication that this proposal would result in adverse cumulative impacts to the shoreline environment (Exhibit 2). (iii) No new upland structures or other development are proposed. (iv) Not applicable as overwater shelters and sleep areas are not proposed. (v) No portion of the proposal will be more than 10 feet above the surface of the water. (vi) The SEAPA baskets will be mostly submerged when the tide is in. The baskets are black and would, therefore, not be likely to contrast with the existing shoreline environment. The upland parcels north of the project remains mostly undeveloped so the visibility of the baskets to adjacent residential parcels is limited. Visual and aesthetic impacts are expected to be minimal. (vii) The proposal is not expected to materially interfere with navigation, access to waterfront properties or public recreational areas so no mitigation was required. Small boats and recreationists can still access and use this portion of the shoreline, while bigger boats would be expected to use the deeper waters of Hood Canal, which is where the bridge opens. Commented [MS31]: This could be because NOA link to the proposal was inoperable. The only comment came from a WDFW who notified the County of the bad link. Commented [MS32]: The analysis did NOT look at nearby existing or anticipated projects, including Carson’s. EXH AP08, p. 2 fn1, and 002 p 72. Commented [MS33]: This sentence is incomplete at best. Carson and the County discussed illegal structures while preparing the application eg EXHs 18, AP08 p 2 Commented [MS34]: When tide is OUT, they would be visible at tides below + 8, (planted at 0’) ie most of the time, and dangerous when just submerged CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 9 of 15 (viii) There is no information that would indicate the proposal is within 600 feet of a National Wildlife Refuge, haul out location, nesting colony, or critical feeding and migration area nor did DCD did receive any comments during noticing that would indicate such areas are present in the vicinity of the project area. (ix) The proposal avoids kelp and native eelgrass. Kelp was not found in the project area and oysters will be raised at least 16.5 feet from native eelgrass patches. (x) Rebar racks will secure the baskets while minimizing the disturbance to the substrate. (xi) A vessel will be put in the water from a boat launch at Shine Tidelands State Park, just north of the Hood Canal Bridge. While DCD did not receive comments from Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, a condition has been added to ensure compliance with this regulation. (xii) Lethal and/or harmful means of controlling birds and mammals are not proposed, and the permit is conditioned to prohibit lethal and harmful predator control. (xiii) Chemical controls, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms are not proposed, and to ensure compliance with this regulation, the permit is conditioned to prohibit the use of these substances unless allowed by state and federal law. (xiv) No noticeable light or glare is expected from this project as workers will use individual headlamps (6,000 lumens or less) during night work between October and March (for three days in a row every other week). No vessel lighting is proposed. For these reasons, lighting used for this proposal would not be expected to affect navigation. (xv) A permit condition is added to ensure that all unnecessary gear is removed from the project area and disposed of at an approved off-site facility. (f) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging aquaculture use and development or bottom culture involving structures, the county may require a visual analysis prepared by the applicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively mitigated. Staff Comment: The proposal would be located in an area where the adjacent uplands are relatively undeveloped with low to no visibility from adjacent parcels. The baskets may be visible during low tides but are not likely be a visual or aesthetic issue for the adjacent upland parcels. Recreational uses (such as kayaking, bird watching) can continue if this proposal is approved and implemented. The area had previously been used for aquaculture for decades (until 2017) so this proposal is not likely to have adverse impacts on the character of those areas in the vicinity of the project area. JCC 18.25.440(6)(a) and (b) present application requirements for aquaculture. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted all information needed to show compliance with SMP requirements. As noted above, the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the character of the area. JCC 18.25.540 presents substantial development permit criteria: To be authorized, all uses and developments shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with this program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required. Staff Comment: The application was reviewed against all applicable sections of the SMP. JCC 18.25.230(1), which pertains to shorelines of statewide significance, states: In accordance with RCW 90.58.020, the county shall manage shorelines of statewide significance in accordance with this section and in accordance with this program as a whole. Preference shall be given to uses that are consistent with the statewide interest in such shorelines. Uses that are not consistent with this section or do not comply with the other applicable policies and regulations of this program shall not be permitted on shorelines of statewide significance. Commented [MS35]: Squamish Harbor IS a feeding area for the ESA listed Marbled Murrelet Commented [MS36]: Parking, too. Carson did not supply required JARPA info and the County did not post there, as required, precluding public cmt. EXH 02, p173 Commented [MS37]: If the required JARPA Att B, 002 p 173 had been completed, and the NOA posted there, people could have informed WSPRC & Cnty Commented [MS38]: The prior operation was on-ground, submerged most of the time. These rebar and baskets present a very different profile and hazard. Commented [MS39]: The application did not give required JARPA info for offsite locations, did not analyze nearby existing or anticipated farms, to name two. Commented [MS40]: Neither the proposal nor the County shows how they comply with JCC 18.25.250 (restoration in buffer) or 18.40.210 (posting NOA) to name two. CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 10 of 15 Staff Comment: The proposal is a preferred use that is consistent with statewide interests. For this reason, the department is recommending approval with conditions. JCC 18.25.230(2) provides requirements for approving a use or development within a shoreline of statewide significance: (a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest. Staff Comment: As stated in JCC 18.25.440(1)(a), aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest. This proposal is consistent with the above-referenced policy and this requirement. (b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. Staff Comment: The natural character of the shoreline would be retained. No grading of the intertidal zone is proposed, water would continue to flow around and through the rebar racks and SEAPA baskets, and the project avoids impacts to eelgrass and the upper beach. (c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit. Staff Comment: The long-term benefit is the use of the shoreline for a preferred, water-dependent commercial development. RCW 90.58.020 allows alteration of the natural shoreline condition for this type of shoreline use. (d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Staff Comment: The proposal is not expected to substantively alter shoreline resources or ecological conditions. Any disturbances to the shoreline environment to place rebar in the substrate would be of limited duration and the disturbed sediments would be expected to settle in close proximity to the SEAPA baskets. (e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. Staff Comment: This proposal would be located on private tidelands and is not intended to increase public access. It should be noted this proposal, if approved, would not limit the ability of the public to access the shoreline for recreational purposes. (I) Increase recreational opportunities of the public in the shorelines. Staff Comment: The proposal is not intended to increase recreational opportunities, but those that currently exist would be able to continue. (g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100. Staff Comment: This RCW pertains to SMP contents and provisions; the proposal is consistent with this section of the RCW. JCC 18.25.240 designates shorelines of statewide significance. Staff Comment: The proposal location meets subsection (2), which includes the waters of Hood Canal between the OHWM and the line of extreme low tide south of the line between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff. JCC 18.25.250 presents use preferences within shorelines of statewide significance. (1) When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist; Staff Comment: Restoration or enhancement is not proposed. However, the Habitat Management Plan addresses measures to conserve the natural environment and the permit is conditioned to comply with these measures. (2) State and federal resource agencies, co-managers, and tribes, shall be consulted for development proposals that affect anadromous fish, shellfish, marine birds, and other shoreline resources; Staff Comment: The proposal was noticed to allow input from other agencies and interested parties. No comments were received from federal or state agencies or from tribal staff that would indicate shoreline resources may be adversely affected by the proposal if all permits are obtained and all permit conditions are followed. Commented [MS41]: Two acres of 3.5-foot tall baskets hanging on rebar is not “natural.” Nor is a reflecting 20’ solar structure on a bank 70’ from OHWM Commented [MS42]: Restoration is not proposed, but it should be required. Carson has violated the SMA by illegally developing within the buffer. Commented [MS43]: No details or references are given here, but the proposal adds two acres of non-natural rebar and plastic and ignores illegal upland structures Commented [MS44]: The email attaching the NOA had a non-operative link, EXH 04, p4, and relevant JARPA info was missing. EXH 02 p 173. CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 11 of 15 (3) Areas that are subject to commercial timber harvest pursuant to the Forest Practices Act and RCW 90.58.150 should be reforested as soon as possible and in accordance with the Forest Practices Act and the Forest and Fish Report. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal. (4) Uses that are sustainable, that do not deplete natural resources, and that are compatible with other approved uses shall be preferred over uses that do not have these qualities; Staff Comment: Aquaculture is a preferred use and is assumed to be consistent with this provision. (5) Uses that provide long-term benefits shall be preferred over uses that provide only short- term gains; Staff Comment: This aquaculture proposal would provide long-term economic benefits and may provide some level of water quality improvements. (6) Uses that preserve aesthetic qualities shall be preferred over uses that impact aesthetic qualities; Staff Comment: The proposal would have little to no visual impacts on adjacent residential parcels and does not have sufficient height to affect views from the water. The proposal, therefore, is not expected to impact aesthetic qualities if approved. (7) Uses that require a shoreline location shall be preferred over non-water-related uses. Non- water-related uses should be located outside the shoreline jurisdiction or in areas where they will not interfere with or displace preferred uses or public access; Staff Comment: This aquaculture proposal requires a shoreline location. (8) Commercial shellfish beds, areas that support recreation and tourism, and other economic resources of statewide importance shall be protected; Staff Comment: The proposed aquaculture farm would be an economic resource. (9) Uses that have the potential to cause significant erosion and sedimentation due to excavation, land clearing, or other activities shall be strictly regulated to prevent adverse impacts to shoreline functions and processes; Staff Comment: Excavation and land clearing are not proposed. The proposal would not be expected to cause significant erosion or sedimentation. (10) All public access and recreation use and development shall be designed to protect the ecological resources upon which such activities depend; and Staff Comment: Public access and recreation are not proposed nor would the proposal eliminate recreational use of the area. (11) Public and private development shall be encouraged to provide trails, viewpoints, water access points and water-related recreation opportunities where conditions are appropriate for such uses. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this aquaculture application. JCC 18.25.270 addresses critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection. Staff Comment: Existing shoreline ecological processes and functions would be expected to be retained if the proposal is approved. An eelgrass survey and a habitat management plan were submitted to address ecological protection. No development is proposed in shoreline buffers. JCC 18.25.280 addresses historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. Staff Comment: No comments were received that would indicate the proposal has the potential to impact these resources. JCC 18.25.290 addresses public access. Staff Comment: Aquaculture proposals are not required to provide public access to private tidelands. JCC 18.25.300 addresses shoreline setbacks and height. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal as aquaculture operations in the area landward of OHWM are not proposed. Commented [MS45]: 3.5-foot high non-natural rebar and plastic certainly does affect views from the water, especially kayaks, canoes, and paddle boards. Commented [MS46]: Carson has already illegally excavated, cleared, graveled, and constructed structures on the site—all within an unstable Shoreline Buffer. Commented [MS47]: Carson has already illegally developed within the shoreline buffer. All development should be removed before a permit is issued. Commented [MS48]: Neither the Applicant nor the County has addressed public access at the offsite location (boat launch and parking at public shoreline) CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 12 of 15 JCC 18.25.310 addresses vegetation conservation. Staff Comment: The proposal avoids native eelgrass and no alteration of vegetation above OHWM is proposed. JCC 18.25.320 addresses water quality and quantity. Staff Comment: Subtidal sediment would be disturbed to place the rebar racks in the tidelands, but water quality and quantity are not likely to be negatively affected by installation or operation of the proposed project. No upland development is proposed so surface water runoff would not be an issue for this proposal. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Based on the above findings, staff recommended conditions are presented below. These conditions may be modified by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner and the Washington State Department of Ecology. 1. Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as described above shall receive separate review from this Department. 2. The permittee is authorized to construct and operate an oyster farm on approximately two acres of intertidal habitat. 3. The permittee shall remove all derelict gear from a previous shellfish operation. 4. Substantial progress towards completion of the project shall be performed within two years of the issuance of the permit. 5. The permittee shall ensure that all measures in the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Confluence Environmental Company (dated May 2024) to protect the natural shoreline environment are implemented. This includes, but is not limited to, measures pertaining to gear installation and siting; maintenance, repair, and work; species-specific activities; and farm plan record keeping. 6. Flood hazard reduction measures shall be used in compliance with the Jefferson County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 15.15 of the Jefferson County Code. 7. To comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Biological Opinion, the permittee shall comply with all conditions in federal permits, including those that pertain to protection of federally-listed species. 8. Rebar racks and SEAPA baskets shall be installed at least 16.5 feet from any native eelgrass bed or patch. Eelgrass patches may migrate over time and it is the responsibility of the Permittee to ensure that no aquaculture operations occur within 16.5 feet of native eelgrass. 9. If public boat launches are used, the applicants shall negotiate all applicable fees with the public entity, including maintenance. 10. Chemicals and fertilizers are prohibited. 11. Headlamps used for nightwork shall not exceed 6,000 lumens. 12. Active predator control was not proposed and is not approved for this aquaculture farm. Non-lethal pest control techniques shall be used. 13. All gear shall be made of materials that would not be expected to have a negative effect on the shoreline environments. 14. Gear shall not be stored on the beach or in the tidelands and must be removed at the end of the work day. 15. Toxic compounds shall not be used or come in contact with the marine environment. 16. Aquaculture activities will be timed so that forage fish and spawning habitats are not disturbed. 17. The permittee shall ensure that proper disposal of gear and trash occurs. Gear that is not immediately needed shall be removed from the project area. All excess or unsecured materials and trash shall be removed from the project area prior to the next incoming tide. 18. Vessels shall be used in a manner that minimizes disturbance to marine flora and fauna. The permittee shall ensure that vessels do not ground out or anchor in native eelgrass beds or on kelp. Commented [MS49]: Vegetation above the OHWM has already been removed. EXH AP 01 Updated Google Earth Commented [MS50]: Most of these should have been listed as “conditions being considered” in the Optional Process NOA Commented [MS51]: If this is meant to refer to past actions on the uplands, the work should NOT be reviewed separately. JCC 18.25.250. Commented [MS52]: Required record keeping of any kind should be submitted to the County on regular dates certain. Otherwise there is no accountability. Commented [MS53]: Permittee should be required to submit the County a professional eelgrass survey every two years on dates certain Commented [MS54]: Permittee should submit agreements or waivers from public entities before a permit takes effect. Commented [MS55]: Rebar and HDPE bags do not meet this standard, as they foul the beaches at long distances, almost always without evident identification. Commented [MS56]: This condition needs to be fleshed out with requirements for dates or consultation with WDFW. Commented [MS57]: This condition should be clarified to say “by water access only.” CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 13 of 15 19. Vessels shall not be used in the dark. Navigational vessel lighting was not proposed and is not approved. 20. Vessels shall be used in deeper water to minimize the potential for propellor scour. 21. Vessels used within any waterbody shall be inspected daily for leaks. The permittee shall ensure all leaks are detected and repaired prior to the vessel leaving the staging area. 22. The permittee shall ensure vessels do not drag anchors, chains, ropes, or other equipment through intertidal and subtidal substrates. 23. All gas-powered vehicles, including vessels, shall contain a spill kit. 24. Clearing, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities above ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is not permitted. 25. The permittee shall ensure workers are adequately trained so that the aquaculture use complies with all biological reports submitted to the county and with all permit conditions intended to protect the natural shoreline environment. 26. Nothing shall be built, staged, or stored within the Killapie Beach Road right-of-way. 27. Use of Killapie Beach Road shall not be used in support of shellfish operations. 28. As required by other Conditions of Approval, the Permittee shall develop and operate in its Project as described in its application materials and supporting reports, and in compliance with other state or federal permits issued for any aspect of this project, including without limitation the following requirements and others added to provide clarity and transparency for the Permittee, county staff, project neighbors, and the general public, in any subsequent compliance or enforcement matter: A. The Permittee shall label gear and equipment placed in the tidelands with identification so that it can be more easily identified if discovered to have moved from its initial location. B. The Permittee has stated that the following shall be used to raise oyster: rebar, SEAPA baskets, synthetic and nylon lines, UV-resistant high-density polyethylene floating bags, wedge anchors, and screw anchors. The Permittee shall regularly update the inventory of all non- biodegradable gear and materials used as part of this aquaculture project (including without limitation plastic items), categorizing the type, volume, location, and intended use of such materials. A copy of such written inventory shall be submitted to the Shoreline Administrator, and placed in the Permit file, with updates provided as needed to keep the inventory current, at least on a semi-annual basis. C. The Permittee shall clean all oyster baskets as necessary to remove biofouling. D. Oysters are to be harvested by hand. E. All activities undertaken in connection with this Project shall be conducted in compliance with any applicable fish or habitat related work windows. F. The Permittee shall perform beach patrols in the Project area within 24 hours of storm events or king tide events or as soon as safe conditions exist, with the retrieval by Permittee of any of its escaped equipment. G. The Permittee shall retrieve any of its escaped equipment within 72 hours of the Permittee receiving notification of the presence of the Permittee's escaped equipment, or as soon as safe conditions exist. H. The Permittee is to provide contact numbers/email addresses for addressing and responding to reports of any permit violations (including without limitation reports of escaped equipment), shared with the County, and shared with individuals who request the contact information from the Permittee. 29. All activities and development authorized by this permit shall be consistent with the approved Project site plan and details included in the application materials, and compliant with current County codes, state regulations, health and safety codes, and federal law applicable to any aspect of the project or aquaculture operations, including without limitation all applicable standards and regulations for aquaculture projects found in JCC 18.25.440. 30. The Permittee shall obtain any associated permit, lease, license, or approval required by any state, federal, tribal, or other regulatory body with jurisdiction over any aspect of the project or proposed aquaculture operations. Any conditions of regulatory agency permits, leases, licenses, or approvals issued for any aspect of this project shall be considered conditions of approval for Commented [MS58]: This condition is vague. It should simply prohibit propellor scour. Commented [MS59]: Fine, but what’s already been don should be removed and restored before a permit issues. Commented [MS60]: This provision is essential but there is no accountability. Permittee should be required to submit annual reports with names and training. Commented [MS61]: This condition is critical but there MUST be a description of how the labels are attached. Of >70 bags I’ve collected, only one was labeled Commented [MS62]: Needs dates-certain stated in the permit conditions. Eg., Every February 1 and August 1. Commented [MS63]: Add: “and shall within 48 additional hours file with the Administrator an inventory of equipment retrieved and equipment lost.” Commented [MS64]: Change “is to” to shall and both “shared with”s to “to” CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 14 of 15 this permit and are incorporated herein by this reference, including, without limitation terms of any lease issued and approved by the Washington Department of Natural Resources or the permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. 31. The Permittee shall comply with all professional report conclusions and recommendations submitted in connection with the pending application for this project, as approved, referenced, relied-upon, and/or modified by the County. 32. Filing with the Department of Ecology; no construction allowed until appeal periods (and any appeals) have concluded. Consistent with WAC 173-27-190, it is expressly understood that construction or development activities pursuant to this permit shall not begin and are not authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one days from the date of such filing have been terminated; except as provided in RCW 90.58.140(5)(a) and (b). 33. Term of Permit. Consistent with JCC 18.25.440(4), because this shoreline substantial development permit is issued to authorize a new aquaculture use or development, this permit shall apply to the initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility or farm, and such approval shall be valid for a period of five years after the effective date of this permit; provided, that the County's Shoreline Administrator may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension has been given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. Any change to the time limits of this permit other than those authorized by this Condition shall require a new permit application. 34. As explained in JCC 18.25.440(4)(b), ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development, and shall not require a new permit, unless or until: (i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or more than 25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to the conditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. If the amount of expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10-year period, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements of this section; or (ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington. 35. JCC 18.25.780 provides that any shoreline permit issued by the County may be rescinded or modified upon a finding by the hearing examiner that the permittee or their successors in interest have not complied with conditions attached thereto, and that the administrator shall initiate recession or modification proceedings by serving written notice of noncompliance to the permittee or their successors and notifying parties of record at the original address provided in application review files. 36. Violations of a Shoreline Permit, including any conditions of approval, are subject to enforcement action by County or State officials, which can include substantial fines or penalties, abatement, corrective action, or other remedies set forth in County Codes and state shoreline regulations. 37. The Permittee shall implement the Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which addresses the unpermitted development on three upland parcels associated with this shoreline application. Prepared by Project Planner Donna Frostholm August 2, 2025. Commented [MS65]: This condition should be removed entirely. It would allow a 25% expansion (½ acre) without ANY environmental analysis, violating SMA Commented [MS66]: Where is this Agreement? No dates or specifics. But should be replaced with strict enforcement of JCC 18.25.250 before any permit issues. Commented [MS67]: Note: This date occurred AFTER Notice of Hearing was posted with instructions to find it. (Also, ends on p 14/15, same as original) CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19 CA Received 08/05/25 EXHIBIT CLOS SDP2024-00006 Rock Island Shellfish Page 15 of 15 CA received 081425 EXHIBIT AP19